Because this issue is as relevant as the day we issued this Statement in 2004, we now offer again the opportunity to endorse this call for answers, and join with those who have already taken a stand. Spread the word, sign the petition.

Thursday September 17, 2009, 12:39 am
If 911 truth becomes common knowledge, whereby EVERYONE knows there is proof that 1) the official investigation is a lie and 2) there is proof showing the attacks were an inside job (ae911truth.org), then we will have our justice and end the War on Terror.

Friday September 18, 2009, 4:19 am
funny how nat. geo,nova,history channel and many others all had specials with science and facts that all prove that planes took down the towers but people still use emotions and conspiracy theories to argue that the gov. was behind it....even phycology today calls this a mental disorder because no matter how many facts etc. prove al-queda with planes did 9/11 peoples sub-concious cant accept this....lol maybe there is a support group for you people or some meds?

Friday September 18, 2009, 7:07 am
Here's what I want you to do Joe, instead of just saying somebody else proved something, why don't you prove how smart you are. Take each question on this page and answer it for us. Then watch me, (or Steve if he has time!) take you apart piece by piece.

Friday September 18, 2009, 9:29 am
So.... Since we have a completely new administration with unlimited access to the highest levels of intelligence information then either:
a. The truth has already been told or
b. The Obama administration is in on it

Friday September 18, 2009, 5:34 pm
"Since when can we trust the highest levels of intelligence information anyway?
if elements in the intelligence apparatus carried out 9/11, then perhaps this apparatus wont be of much help"
Just more circular reasoning. It's the X-Files all over again. You thought it was Bush, but no not really. He was just a pawn. Since it had to be an inside job, Obama was going to reveal it after he took office. But damn, he's too stupid to see the truth and THEY are just playing him like a video game. But don't despair, the answer is in the next episode (or maybe next season, perhaps?). Keep watching....

Friday September 18, 2009, 5:36 pm
9/11 occurred simpley because the Bush Administration ignored warnings with the excuse that they did not know when, where or how. All they had to do at that time was beef up security, especially at the airports. They locked the barn door after the horse ran out.

If some one threatend to burglarize your home, you would lock the door before they got in.

This was admitted by Condoleeza Rice at a Congressional Hearing which I watched on TV.

Friday September 18, 2009, 5:45 pm
Mark.....you need to review the facts on the whitewash commission that was originally supposed to be headed by Henry the K.

Remember how people roared out about that one?

A stage-managed damage control organ from day one

Like the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 , the insulting charade conducted in 2002, the 9/11 Commission is not an "investigation", and never has been one. Indeed, the full name of the group---the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon America--- is a dead giveaway. The phrase assumes that 9/11 was a "terrorist attack upon" the United States, carried out by "Al-Qaeda terrorists" originating outside of the United States. In other words, case closed.

The Commission was formed only after public pressure, notably by outraged 9/11 victims families, forced the White House to undertake some measure of public damage control. Opportunistically, the Bush White House dictated the conditions under which the Commission would operate. In addition to being granted numerous protections, Bush himself would appoint the Commissions director, as well as dictate and approve its mandate. Another condition was that the Commission had to be comprised by "prominent citizens"---political elites and Washington insiders.

Ultimately, the mandate was limited strictly to "how to prevent future breakdowns"---cementing into place the assumption of unintended "breakdown". In other words, its strict mission was to echo and reinforce the original White House lie that 9/11 was an act of "outside terrorism" ("Al-Qaeda"), that the "failure to stop it" was the result of "intelligence failures", "incompetence", "breakdowns", "lack of preparedness", "inexplicable communications problems", and other excuses."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20040627&articleId=779

They were never meant to investigate anything....otherwise how could their report just mention in passing that the towers fell at free-fall speed.....only possible with a controlled demolition, and then drop it.

Friday September 18, 2009, 5:46 pm
clinton did raise the threat level at all airports but only for about a year after he got the warnings.....but back to 9/11.. every news network fox,cnn,nbc,cbs etc...even including msnbc and tens of thousands of reporters every senator/congressman all agree to the facts about 9/11 that planes destroyed the towers ...planned from bases in tora bora afghanastan by al-queda...so i guess they must all be wrong too including all the specials on nova,nat. geo,history channel etc...and yes john they are all wrong and part of the conspiracy theory and you are right...its not your fault but the way your brain is wired...

Do you guys think Bush planned and carried out the 9/11 Attacks?
No. Bush did nothing, except perghaps prove his incompetence and give himself an alabi. He did not move to protect his country and people. He sat there like the marionette puppet that he is in a school classroom in Florida waiting for someone to tell him what to do. He and his neo-con inner circle did, however, seize upon 9/11 to foster their political agenda: The Project for the New American Century _ Rebuilding America's Defences (PNAC), published in 2000. He and his cabinet also did everything possible to thwart a truly independent investigation. We do note that "incompetence" and "lack of resources" then became the convenient official excuse for increasing defense spending, homeland security, increased surveillance of civilians, etc.

Do you guys think the government was behind 9/11 ?
No. We have however looked at the totality of 9/11, before, during and after, and the evidence points to some high-level involvement of elements or a faction within the government, intelligence agencies (including foreign), and private contractors. Some very basic questions must always be asked when a serious crime occurs: 1. Who had the means? 2. Who had the motive? 3. Who had the opportunity? 4. Who had benefited 5. What do the eye-witnesses tell us? 6. What does the physical evidence tell us? 7. Did anyone tamper with evidence or try to withhold it? 8. Who was in a position to prevent the crime, and what did they do? 9. Did anyone have foreknowledge, and what did they do with that knowledge? 10. What does history tell us about such events? Is there a pattern? We are very sorry to say the evidence and facts do not lead to cave a in Afghanistan.

Friday September 18, 2009, 6:08 pm
Thanks for the answers to those questions Joe. ;)

"every news network fox,cnn,nbc,cbs etc...even including msnbc and tens of thousands of reporters every senator/congressman all agree to the facts about 9/11 that planes destroyed the towers ...planned from bases in tora bora afghanastan by al-queda...so i guess they must all be wrong too including all the specials on nova,nat. geo,history channel etc...and yes john they are all wrong and part of the conspiracy theory"

Friday September 18, 2009, 7:50 pm
john you are obviously trying to hard which shows you have real doubts about your own feelings(phyc. 101) and i hope you someday see the truth and all your questions have been answered thousands of times by thousands of people.....agree to disagree....

Saturday September 19, 2009, 12:30 am
Agree to disagree? You are the one that trolls Care2 soley to attack the sanity of anybody that disagrees with you about 9/11. I'm trying too hard because I defend my position? You are the one that started invoking numbers of credible people that agree with you as a talking point, so I just went where you took the debate. And your constant talk about psychology is no different, we have many members of that community on our side as well. Considering the taboo surrounding issues like this, our numbers are HUGE in any given group whom you think matters...

"This paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so."

And this is just one point in the many points that make up the case for complicity. Anyone that is honest with themselves, and clicks on the link above will see that the issue of the descuction of the WTC is not cleared up.

And if it is not cleared up folks, there is no reasons to believe Joe when he says all the other questions are cleared up.

Take you best shot at answering those questions Joe, I'll post what you have to say. Just take them one by one, then I'll post my responses. If you are concerned enough to stalk 9/11 truthers on here, surely you can kill me in a debate, just use all those sources you think have proved me wrong. I'm sure there are blatent contradictions and obvious inaccuracies in them, right? Either that, or keep your word about agreeing to disagree and delete your Care2 account, because again, as far as I can tell, stalking 9/11 truthers is the only reason you are here.

Saturday September 19, 2009, 1:56 am
Hello to Joe Jones ! :) It's so nice to read your informed opinion on the matter here. Answering specific questions seems to be your speciality. You have done such a good job ! :P

Seriously, it looks to me like there are only a few reasons why you won't entertain a debate here about the evidence- whether it stacks up as you say it does, whether corporate media and the government are being as truthful about 911 as all the other things in the world ... I wonder if you still think the War in Iraq was because Saddam had links to Al Qaeda. It was on the news ! Perhaps you are a bit more clever than that and think the War in Iraq occurred due to "mistaken" intelligence ? hmmm.....

Well, we know for a fact that the intel was not of the "mistaken" variety. In fact the White House deliberately lied about the intelligence in a critical report to the US Congress, it's documented:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfpms98GeQ&feature=PlayList&p=9F833EE81EC327C0&index=28

It's a pity the mainstream corporate media, including all those journalists and other military experts, and law experts, won't relay these facts to the public, even when there's been Congressional Hearings, a Senate Investigation etc.

However, some digging will show that many experts have challenged the official "mistaken intelligence" line we hear in the media, that this position is FORMED ON EVIDENCE rather than official talking points. It only takes a second look Joe. The same holds true for 911. It's all about considering the evidence FIRST before drawing your conclusions.

Joe, the 911 Commission Investigation, as shown by John-Michael, was a White House run thing that sought to white wash and rail road evidence to fit a certain agenda (that Al Qaeda did it). The head was Philip Zelikow, a close friend of Condi Rice, who controlled the entire process. 6 out of 10 of the 911 Commission chiefs now say the investigation they endorsed failed to properly investigate. Fancy that ! I wonder WHY they would say such a thing ? What specific things didn't they properly investigate ???? (hint: John-Michael has linked to much of the evidence and issues of concern. Plus, I recall that the two Chairs said that the military lied to them about NORAD's reactions.... standing down airforce interception is an act of treason right there.....so let's start the investigation shall we ?)

Sir Joe, to prove yourself to the concerned audience here on Care2 I think you should try to answer some of John's points, after all I'm sure it must be easy to "debunk" the research he's presenting- it's only analysis by highly skilled academics (professors, PhDs, Engineers etc). Joe, please use the material from National Geographic and Psychology Today to EXPLAIN (logical debate + science is all about explanation) why the hard evidence of the Inside job is faulty. Go ahead, we have plenty of time here.

Is your lack of response simply because you are one of those people who stubbornly and irrationally takes an emotional view of an event and NEVER looks at anything beyond what you were first told ?

This is an important matter Joe. Other Americans have had the guts to look further into the matter and realised the disturbing nature of the truth as we see from the hard facts. Check that: over 800 Architects and Engineers at www.ae911truth.org have had the courage to take a second look at the crime and scores more of these experts sign up every month. They all know, without doubt, from the physical evidence, that 911 HAD to have been an inside job.

Joe Jones, you should realise that your own feelings here are indeed clouding your thoughts on the issue. Irrationally avoiding debate, especially if you wish to avoid even addressing a few simple points of evidence, indicates that you are the one in denial not us (psych. 402). If you are right, I'm sure the audience will see the wisdom of your argument when you properly address our concerns.

Are you too afraid to take a second look ? Is your ego too big for a debate ? Will you not do any research in order to sort out the truth of the issue ? (note: the truth about 911 will end the war on terror)

OR willl you keep up your "grand standing" by appealling to discredited TV shows and fraudulent reports put out by the establishment ?

Of course there is the distinct possiblity that you are a troll whose job is throw water on the whole case here to stop other people from signing up and passing around the information (-you have zero friends [18/09], your sudden appearance on Care2 to counter 911 truth, your use of unsubstantiated rhetoric and ridicule in the argument to discourage readers, the playing "you're a loon" gambit etc).

Assuming you're a troll, I think you better take a good look at what you are doing. You are on the wrong side. You are hurting the US people by knowingly perpetuating a lie (audience: most others who disagree with the truth movement *unknowingly* perpetuate the lie- there's a huge difference). Joe take a second look at what you have become ....

For your conscience sake Joe, I hope you are simply a stubborn fella....

Saturday September 19, 2009, 3:53 am
HURRAY, John Michael & Steve, too!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Joe & Mark, you should not harass & potentially cause harm to others, and, PLEASE be reasonable & at least take the time to explore EVERYTHING on the sites provided in this discussion before commenting on this topic again~~~

Saturday September 19, 2009, 12:52 pm
Published in August 1998:
"The son of a Saudi Arabian construction magnate, Osama bin Laden was believed to be an active supporter of militant Islamic groups internationally. Intelligence officials believed that bin Laden was indirectly connected to a number of major terrorist attacks, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York City".
Yet, with all its power, the U.S. was not able to neutralize bin Laden neither before nor after 9/11/2001

Internet poster who takes oppositional views to any advocacy site, regardless of the actual strengh of his chosen position, for the pure purpose of stirring up debates, generating animosity, and triggering hatred.

Goal of Trolling- The feelings of superiority and laughs that come from generating hatred, bad feeling, or confusion on the target of trolling, and attention generated from getting targets to respond.

2. Disregard of any fact that does not back the troll's advocy position, and excessive focus of any debunker informations, regardless of the motives of the debunker.

3. Endless verbosity when arguing any position, regardless of logic or reasoning or actual facts, but a lot of use of "facts" discussed generally, but never quoted or sourced. Example- Thousands of scientists say I am right.

Payoff of trolling-

1. Making other people feel bad, without the risk of getting one's personal face punched in, for being rude, cruel, or socially uncaring.

2. Bullying without the mess and fuss and muss of actually answering for bad behavior.